Meta

Tomás (Not Thomas shitlord!) is a gay, latino, bipolar, anti-feminist, MRA, biochemistry student and occasional writer. He dislikes being labeled more than anything and is often confused. He started seeing the world differently after a brief abusive relationship with Amnesty International. After he met Karen Straughan by providing the plutonium proof bra that delayed Iran's [Omitted]. Since then he became a massive fan of the Honey Badger Brigade and writes for the Honey Badger Site from Santiago de Chile while on the look-out for local feminist hot-spots.WARNING: DO NOT TRUST WHEN HE SAYS NO HOMO, IT'S ALWAYS HOMO.

There is a growing notion that any person that reminds you of a particular attribute is engaging in the same type of behavior as social justice. That if a woman reminds you she’s a woman when she explains why she rejects feminism, or a gay man reminds you he’s gay when rejecting the insane LGBT lobby, or a black person reminding you they’re black when saying All Lives Matter is somehow playing the same game we criticize. You partially right, we’re playing the game. What your narcissistic ass fails to understand is, we’re also playing you.

Usually people say ”Dude, don’t give them tips” when I say something like this. But it really doesn’t matter if I do. I can write in the second person referring to feminists, Antifa, BLM. It’s nothing more than a style of writing. You’re not listening. If this article doesn’t appear on Buzzfeed or AJ+ you will never read it. Call it catharsis if you may, or maybe I like to pretend I have intellectual opponents that are worth a fuck.

It’s been years of a random person starting a conversation by stating their race, gender, sexual orientation, disability or what have you as if that strengthens the argument. We tried dialogue, we tried reaching out, we tried talking to the ”moderates.” It doesn’t work, you never listen. And oddly enough there is a rule in SocJus, listen to more marginalized people. Don’t talk over them. In simpler terms, shut the fuck up you het cis white male. So when I say I am a gay latino with bipolar disorder and I profoundly reject your bullshit, you’re supposed to listen. And something beautiful happens:

You prove me right.

It’s not that you don’t care about those traits. I’m the one that doesn’t. If I’m discussing the validity of an argument your genitalia, color or sexual appetites are irrelevant. For you the moment I disagree, I become a traitor with internalized homophobia, like that meant anything. But there is something of value to save from that and that is, you have no values. What you mean when you say don’t speak over marginalized people is, stay in line with the rhetoric. I’ve said it before, male feminists are the most woman-hating people I’ve ever met, and BLM activists are among the most racist, We see through your façade. We have all these years. We were trying to engage. We were giving you a chance.
That’s over now.

The punch a Nazi meme crossed the line, but not because you had been peaceful before. You’re a member of a violent cult, hopefully soon to be regarded as a terror group. It crossed the line because every leftist publication, the elites, the people who are supposed to behave, they condoned and promoted violence. That’s a big no-no, one we can’t tolerate. You can call us the worst things possible. You can lie about us. You can censor us, kick us off liberal social media. But you cannot, you CANNOT make us go away. That’s the purpose of violence, and you’re too weak to achieve it. I’m not going to say everyone who opposes social justice is a coherent group, but I can with a good amount of certainty assure you we’re not a self-destructive one.

The cannibalization of the left is something I would laugh at if it wasn’t so incredibly insidious. One remark and the person is dropped, condemned, portrayed as a member of the other side, left alone. When one of you makes a simple, honest mistake, you turn them into lepers. How many times people from the right, from Gamergate, from the MRM and even from the alt-right have defended someone that wants nothing to do with them? We are not trying to convince them of changing their entire mindset. We are acting like human beings who know what kind of shit your side is capable of and we don’t want that to happen to anyone, even if they don’t like us. I’ve defended the freedom of speech of feminists, communists, people whose ideas I despise. But I don’t despise the person. I think that’s the big difference. We hate Marxism, feminism, Islamism, authoritarianism. You motherfuckers simply hate us.

This Nazi thing was a balance between perfectly predictable and yet incredibly disgusting. There are no Nazis, so you again redefined a term to suit your needs. The problem this time is you didn’t send a memo redefining Nazi. Therefore, under the current definition of social justice, we’re all Nazis. We’re fucking Schrödinger Nazis. There are Jewish Nazis, gay Nazis, transgender Nazis, black Nazis (not Gazi in this case), and at the same time there is not one example of an actual Nazi. The term effectively means any person who deserves political violence over their views.

I think you’re too far gone, but I seem to be in the minority in that one. A lot of people still expect you to be able to realize what you’re advocating for. If Richard Spencer is a Nazi, Susan B. Anthony most certainly qualifies too. Given that most safe spaces are restricting Jews, are they Nazis now? The Young Turks are named after a genocidal movement, and they have denied the Armenian genocide, so they are Nazis. I can play this bullshit game all day but I won’t, because you people called Laurie Penny, the gender queer radical Marxist feminist, a Nazi for talking to Milo. You’re doing what I would normally consider a reductio ad absurdum and taking it seriously.

I’ve pictured in my head a Spartacus-style moment but with people saying ”No, I am the Nazi” and while it sounds hilarious, I don’t want to satirize this further because you take satire as serious discourse. Jokes are no longer jokes. Although…people like to laugh. You’re taking the most disagreeable position possible and you think it’s going to work. The definition of insanity according to Einstein is doing something over and over again and expecting a different result. I think Einstein was using the scientific method as the norm. In which case, yes, repeating an experiment over and over expecting it to turn out different would be insane. But in a more common setting, I think he accidentally described the behavior of a mob comprised of over-privileged cluster B personality assholes. It has to work this time because you always get your way, that’s not insane. It’s narcissistic, It’s pathetic… but I won’t call you insane, because that implies you’re not responsible for your own actions, It implies lack of malice and not understanding that what you did was wrong. That’s not the case because if it was, why are you wearing that fucking mask?

It’s hard to see people cheering at Meryl Streep for saying violence brings violence and then those same people cheering at a man getting punched in the face for thinking things they dislike. You’re either lying about the first part, or you want violence. For years I’ve would have answered it’s the first one, but as of now, I’m thinking it has more nefarious reasons. I’m wondering if you want to bring back The Weather Underground and The Black Liberation Army, if you want to radicalize to the point of bombing federal buildings, killing police officers (that one already happened) and hijacking airplanes (good luck with that one.) I know this, both of those terrorist organizations died down. Promoting equality through violence may be one of the most disgusting actions any given group can take. How many times is the rainbow flag going to share a space with the anarcho-communist one?

If I asked you nicely to stop using us as a shield for your degenerate, violent behavior, would it make any difference? I already know the answer, it’s nice to entertain the lie for a brief moment in time.
Just a moment. I’m not a feminist.

There is no real point here. I think I understand you well enough, and I know you will never even try to understand me or anyone you deem problematic. But I want to make something clear. When we invited you to talk, when we were accepting of you as an individual and allowing you to pursue a hateful agenda in the name of people who want nothing to do with you, that was us giving you a chance. Hundreds, thousands of chances of dialogue, understanding and even legitimacy. We were given the middle finger each time. We were censored, doxed, sent death threats, our families were threatened, our friends lost their jobs, other friends lost us. And in that environment of hatred, personal attacks and threats, we kept trying.

That’s over.

You are explicitly stating your will to use violence and starting to do so. We could handle your pathetic threats, your lies, your attacks, and remain peaceful. But we will not watch innocent people be subjected to violence and remain peaceful. We will not be subjected to violence and remain peaceful. You pathetic fucking brats haven’t seen anything yet, not a tad of violence, but while we don’t advocate violence, neither would we eschew self-defense. Remember that self-defense is a right, a right we’re are really fucking good at asserting. We are more than you, we’re stronger than you, we’re tougher than you. Like a great mind once said, “we’re fucking better than you, much better. You’re garbage.” And you don’t stand a fucking chance in hell in winning the culture war through violence. As self-destructive as you people are, I don’t think you can fathom what it will be like if you keep using violence to reach your self-centered, self-righteous goals.

For your own safety, back down. This is not a threat, a threat implies an alternative. You’re leaving us with none. I hit people that hit Nazis, especially if those Nazis are my friends. And you cunts are calling all my friends Nazis. So if you’re thinking of engaging in political violence, remember, while we will never do that, we will defend ourselves. And our simple self-defense is able to be exponentially greater than anything you think you’re capable of doing. So for your own safety, don’t punch a Nazi. We Nazis get very angry when our fellow Nazis are attacked.

Published by

Tomás Allende

Tomás (Not Thomas shitlord!) is a gay, latino, bipolar, anti-feminist, MRA, biochemistry student and occasional writer. He dislikes being labeled more than anything and is often confused. He started seeing the world differently after a brief abusive relationship with Amnesty International. After he met Karen Straughan by providing the plutonium proof bra that delayed Iran's [Omitted]. Since then he became a massive fan of the Honey Badger Brigade and writes for the Honey Badger Site from Santiago de Chile while on the look-out for local feminist hot-spots.
WARNING: DO NOT TRUST WHEN HE SAYS NO HOMO, IT'S ALWAYS HOMO.
View all posts by Tomás Allende

Just a FYI. Honey badger brigade does not endorse or advocate any violence whatsoever. Publication here does not indicate endorsement of the views of the author.

This post was published without my review. I’m currently unable to update it with an editors note indicating that the views expressed in it do not reflect those of honey badger brigade. Please let this comment stand as that note.

Further I would like to state that I disagree with the sentiments expressed here on a personal level. We will get no where through threats even if violence in self-defense. As difficult as it is engaging in even self defence will only divide people further and amplify this destructive dynamic till its outside anyone’s ability to contain.

We’ve all been down this road before. There has to be a better solution.

-Alison Tieman

Al Pollick

The rules of violence predate man, and will outlive man.

1.) Once violence has started, the only way to end it is through superior countervailing violence.

2.) Before violence has started, the only way to prevent violence is the promise of superior countervailing violence.

Trying to reason, appeasement, without rule 2 in effect not only invites but demands attack.

Not willing or unable to follow the 2 rules is weakness. To those who are violent, weakness invites their attack, they know they can do it without cost to themselves.

Animals, humans, societies, and nations understand this.

Wishing it not to be so, doesn’t change reality.

Al Pollick

Paraphrasing Haukin’s “Song of Meditation. ”

All through history, those who couldn’t fight were destroyed.

Also through history, those who loved to fight were also destroyed.

Together strength and virtue, such alone lasts, to lead others a right.

Chris

I remember what a psychoanalyst had to say about the origins of human violence. According to him, human beings were acting out the violence perpetrated upon them by the natural world. Early humans were much more vulnerable to animal attack, floods, hurricanes, disease, etc.

Al Pollick

Yes, if humans were unable to be violent, we wouldn’t be where we are today.

In your garden, the spider attacks the ant, the cat attacks the field mouse.

The world is a violent place.

Jaime Osbourn

I disagree Allison. These people have a bullies mentality, as long as they can get away with attacking people they will. There is no moral high ground when dealing with them. I believe what will happen is one of their victims, scared or angry, will draw and fire to protect themselves. When that happens we will all have a choice to make. Chamberlain made the same mistake I believe you are making, they know only two ways. Their way and no way, we will be forced to teach them a third and the teaching will be ugly.

Honey Badger Brigade

Chamberlain was dealing with an enemy nation. What these people are trying to do is destroy the idea of America by any means necessary including inciting a civil war. Violence is exactly what they want.

http://honeybadgerbrigade.com/ Hannah Wallen

The most effective way to advocate FOR violence is to inform those who have demonstrated a will to use it to subjugate you that if they do, you will roll over for them.
No genuinely rational, intelligent person wants violence, and it is unquestionably wrong to use it to enforce one’s beliefs. It’s a terrible thing that reasonable people reserve as only a last resort against an injurious, violent attack, not the tool of coercion which rioters and other criminals make it. But as much as we’re told violence begets violence, the fact is that coercively violent people don’t need any inspiration other than their desire to force you to bend to their will. If the cause of violence was violence, it wouldn’t exist, because being its own cause, it never would have been present in the first place, leaving nothing to perpetuate. In the case of the coercively violent, it is more effective to let it be known that yes, if forced into a choice between being subjected to injurious violence, and defending oneself, one’s attacker cannot count on an easy, willing victim, but active resistance.

Does this mean “go on the attack?” Absolutely not! One would have to make a very telling leap of belief to see it that way.
Does it mean “anything goes?” Hell no… and if those who are facing violence from authoritarian “social justice” types were of a mind to take it that way, they’d have gone down that road with or without anyone’s words.
It is simply the open, honest acknowledgement that within the greater sphere of non-authoritarian, non-“social justice” mentalities, there are people who, if confronted with a choice between sustaining injury and defending themselves, will defend themselves. And that, too, will happen with or without anyone’s words.

Tomás Allende

Bill Ayers is mainstream, Assata Shakur is an icon, remember that among all the things they are, they are radical feminists. MRAs could become a target, not for censorship, not for doxing, but for real violence. After Jane Alpert bombed the New York Federal Building and went into hiding, her manifesto was published in Ms. Magazine. There is a long history of domestic terrorism among communist, feminist and black supremacist organizations in the US, and now we have Antifa and BLM devolving back into that.
My worry is that given that all the paranoid attacks on the current governemnt are based on a mix of identity politics and plain communism, they will grow more and more violent, and they won’t have the ”care” the WUO had of not causing civilian casualties, I don’t see that in their dogma, I don’t see that in their actions. They want blood. And I don’t know if Trump’s cabinet will dare to tackle them unless they commit a big terrorist act. We can’t be sitting ducks in the meantime.
In the 60s and 70s, the violence was justified mainly in the violence commited in Vietnam. There’s no clear conflict to justify it now. And they’re getting more and more violent. Nazi means pro-white, anti-feminist, MRA, right wing, capitalist, rich, white, male…they’re setting up their Vietnam war, except they’re choosing to make it in the US, which means the attempt to not harm of Ayers and the likes will no longer be valid.
I didn’t write this article to convince anyone or to show I’m 3edgy5u, I think this conversation has to happen, because it’s not up to us whether they will attack, and if they do, we need contingency, we need to know where we stand, and I’m tired of people getting beaten up and them taking it over optics. I’m afraid one of those people will not survive the PR move. I live in Chile, and you guys are a step above marches, but to those people we have to tell them it’s not only ok but constitutionally protected for them to defend themselves and each other.
This is not a call for violence, it’s an attempt to defuse it. Maybe it’s too provocative, maybe it won’t be effective, maybe people won’t really care, but we have to try, and it has to start with stating we won’t take violence passively, it has to start by letting them know they will lose by taking this route. It has to start somewhere, I don’t think we have much time left. And while I always think I may be paranoid, looking at the patterns, the historical roots of the current radical movements and their legitimization of using violence as a valid political tool, I’m very afraid I’m right.

Chris

Only use violence in self defense, and as a last resort. Remember the cops are likely to be standing right there and arrest you, even if you are not the instigator. There’s some truth to the idea we are being played by the authorities using Hegelian tactics. The black block were undercover police during the NAFTA protests. That’s one of the real reasons you see protesters wearing masks and balaclavas over their faces.

Long ago, I used to play a game when watching protests, trying to pick out who was the police dept. provocateur and which one was the CSIS agent. If you see a group of them that are all physically fit, over 6 feet, covered head to toe and all get arrested in unison. all in a tightly choreographed manner with the police, that’s because they’re on the same side.

Take the Seattle protests where passersby supported what the police were doing when they arrested them. If you watch the video, it was like a dance routine. All the protesters were arrested at exactly the same moment in exactly the motions, all evenly spaced apart.

People are not defending themselves out of fear of looking like the bad guys, and sorry but I’m not letting people getting beaten to the ground because the optics were not perfect. I’m not advocating violence, I’m advocating a measured response, so far we have been taking it, enough is enough. Wearing a red hat at an event doesn’t make warrant violence. And they have to learn that.

http://honeybadgerbrigade.com/ Hannah Wallen

I’m featuring this comment. Undercover police acting as instigators is something that needs to be known & taken into consideration.

This is also a reason why anyone attending an event with a political theme should film, at least as long as they are outside the event, and inside, too, if it is allowed. It’s much harder to lie about what happened if there are multiple sources of footage showing the truth.

Al Pollick

Yes they want to tear apart America. We are. I lived through the 60s, the nation wasn’t nearly as divided.

Yes they want chaos in the streets. They have it.

The preferable solution is for the police to arrest the rioters, instead of standing down for political reasons. This isn’t likely.

The MSM, Hollywood, and Dems are encouraging and rewarding the rioters. Some are also calling for political assassination of President Trump.

At UC Berkeley there were people left unconscious laying in the streets continuing to be hit on the head with flag poles. Are they dead, quadriplegic, or suffering from permanent cognitive deficits?

The activist courts have shown their true colors. If President Trump acts, they will obstruct. He really is left with one choice, Martial Law. He is showing great restraint and working behind the scenes.

Unlike the 60s where Kent State, 4 dead, pretty much put an end to campus unrest, a similar incident could be like gas on a fire.

The civil war they want won’t go the way they want. They will die and tens of millions will starve to death.

America will stay together. And it won’t be Socialist.

They need to stand down. But they won’t.

Al Pollick

It’s happened.

University of Washington: Jan 20, 17; Milo protest.

The shooter, with his wife, we’re there to see Milo. They were attacked by the rioting crowd. He first used pepper spray against the attack, then he was grabbed and shot the rioter who grabbed him. They got away, turned themselves into the campus police, and were released. The person who grabbed him remains hospitalized in serious condition.

Yet the violence continues…

http://honeybadgerbrigade.com/ Hannah Wallen

Do you think they would not have done so if they had not faced resistance from one of the people they attacked?

Al Pollick

Sorry for taking awhile. I’m not sure of your question.

If you’re asking would he have shot the other if he wasn’t grabbed and was able to get away with his wife. Probably not.

If you’re asking would the guy who grabbed him would have continued the attack knowing he could be shot or injured, this is harder. Maybe not, & maybe yes. Even though under normal rules of engagement, group attacking a couple the shooting was justified, the narrative is the man shot is the victim. The attacking political terrorists feel they are really justified in their violence. They are also being rewarded with accolades. Also, the victims of their political violence are justified in their defense. This quickly can devolve into increasing levels of violence. That’s why it would best be handled by the police and courts. If not, we are going to see dead on both sides laying in the streets.

Could talk, logic, & reason prevail? The left has already dehumanized those they are attacking. Just as the Jews were dehumanized by the NAZIs. Many of the rioters are being paid. This doesn’t look good. At what point will the cost for the political violence terrorists be too great to bear? Are they willing to give their lives to bring about their Communist utopia, probably.

The political violence terrorists have to be made to understand, America will never be Communist or Socialist any time soon. The pendulum is swinging back to the center and right. They will lose their Revolution and their deaths will be meaningless.

http://honeybadgerbrigade.com/ Hannah Wallen

Not sure if you made a point to answer everything except the question I actually asked, or of you just did not get what I’m saying with it.
You seem to be blaming the initial violence on the response the violent individuals are getting to their actions.

That indicates a belief that if those engaging in the initial violence didn’t believe there’d be resistance, they would not have been violent in the first place.

I’m asking for confirmation or denial of that indicated belief.

As to what you did say, I have to ask:
Do you think self-defense is never justified because somewhere, there are police officers?
Do you believe that it’s better to allow a violent attacker to harm or even kill their target and then let the police handle the aftermath rather than defend oneself and complicate the investigation?

Al Pollick

“You seem to be blaming the initial violence on the response the violent individuals are getting to their actions.”

In a way I am, but the attack is still the full responsibility of the attackers – they are wrong. “Blame” in this case is taking ownership/control of the situation the defender finds themselves in. Passivity encourages attackers. Active resistance usually discourages attackers.

“That indicates a belief that if those engaging in the initial violence didn’t believe there’d be resistance, they would not have been violent in the first place.”

I deny, if I understand you correctly. I think you are saying here, attackers attack those who will respond with violence. Usually attackers think twice before attacking someone where it will cost them.

“Do you think self-defense is never justified because somewhere, there are police officers?”

I believe Self Defense is a right under natural law. This includes permanently maiming and killing attackers. This includes the use of weapons. We temper this with “appropriate force.” The police can’t be everywhere, nor do we want a society where they are.

“Do you believe that it’s better to allow a violent attacker to harm or even kill their target and then let the police handle the aftermath rather than defend oneself and complicate the investigation?”

Never. I believe if someone intends to kill us in an attack, it is our duty to stop their attack by any means necessary, including permanently maiming or killing them.

Self Defense is a right and duty.

But having said that, and this doesn’t negate that right and duty, I believe this situation is best handled by society. It’s their responsibility and duty to maintain peace. Peace where all sides have the right to express themselves. Punching anyone they feel are NAZIs is not protected expression.

Without society fulfilling it’s duty and responsibility. This situation will very likely escalate into armed conflict on the streets before the end of the Summer. At UW one leftist attacker was shot. At Berkeley the leftist attackers were more violent. In the future: At another several leftist attackers get shot by defenders. At another the leftist attackers shoot several without pretense of punching first. At another the center and right shoot many of the left. After this you have out and out war.

Having said that, if society isn’t going to protect the center and right’s right to freedom of speech and expression then it’s their right and duty to protect it.

The left has no right to political violence, or to limit other’s rights – unfortunately presently they not only mistakenly believe they have the right but the duty to do so.

Al Pollick

Keeping history in mind.

The Socialist NAZIs didn’t start the violence in Germany before WW2. The Communists did, going after everyone else.

Everyone else banded together to put down the Communists with the Socialist NAZIs in the lead. The German Weimar Republic was ineffectual after WW1.

Once the Communists were gone, the NAZIs turned on the right and center.

The Socialist NAZIs were also Crony Capitalists. They were totally intolerant of any political speech other than their own.

And as they say, the rest is history – a nightmare.

gwallan

I grew up in a time when the memory and reality of nazism and fascism were very fresh in peoples minds. Those throwing these labels around today would poo their pants if they ever encountered the real thing.